The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 508

mousepod · 12-09-2009, 04:21 PM

I also think that there's a misconception about the cost of medical care with insurance. After my emergency visit to the hospital last week (that included one night's stay), my bill for the deductible + co-pay + my percentage of daily charge was close to $1000. That doesn't include lab fees, which I'm sure will be costly as well.

And I'm covered under what's considered to be a good insurance plan.

wendybeth · 12-10-2009, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousepod

I also think that there's a misconception about the cost of medical care with insurance. After my emergency visit to the hospital last week (that included one night's stay), my bill for the deductible + co-pay + my percentage of daily charge was close to $1000. That doesn't include lab fees, which I'm sure will be costly as well.

And I'm covered under what's considered to be a good insurance plan.

Many of the people who wind up filing for bankruptcy due to medical bills have insurance. Even the best plans do not pay for everything, and oftentimes insurers will come back months later and decide they don't want to pay for a procedure or meds they previously approved.

Tom · 12-09-2009, 06:20 PM

I believe as well that many of those who are currently happy with their health insurance will become less happy if cost increases are not controlled soon.

My premiums are about 2.5 times what they were 15 months ago (and I can't change providers due to a pre-existing condition). Right now, I can still afford to pay them, but I won't be able to if they continue in that direction, and I think a lot of people could see themselves similarly priced out of their current insurance in the not-too-far-off future.

lashbear · 12-10-2009, 05:33 AM

You may remember I had a Tenodesis last year (the re-attachment of my Bicep muscle in my right arm). The Out-of pocket cost to me after my medical insurance and the Government medicare paid all their bits was still $1200 - because the Government sets the rebate levels and the AMA sets their "Standard scheduled Fees" and nary the twain shall meet.

At least they threw in that packet of pain-killers. They were fun.

Alex · 12-15-2009, 12:44 PM

While on conference calls today I've been bouncing around ideas in my head for how I'd re-do the election of the president if granted such power (I'm odd).

The idea I've been swirling around is this:

President is elected (whether using current electoral college model or not) to initial four year term.

After four years, rather than an all out election, the president is subjected to a national vote of confidence. Everybody just votes on "Should Bob continue to be president?"

If majority (though I've been thinking of supermajority requirements too) says yes then repeat every two years until majority no longer say yes. No term limit on office.

If majority says no then full blown presidential election is held 1 year later, current president is not eligible.

Cycle starts over.

Office of vice president is eliminated. In case of presidential death/incapacitation next in line holds office until full presidential election to be held at next scheduled vote of confidence (successor eligible for office).

Assuming all of this for the sake of argument, I'd be interested to know on anything thoughts on repercussions from such a system?

BarTopDancer · 12-15-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

(I'm odd).

Good thing I was sitting down when I read this. I am shocked! SHOCKED I say!

Quote:

Assuming all of this for the sake of argument, I'd be interested to know on anything thoughts on repercussions from such a system?

The majority could have kept Bush in office for much longer than he already was.

Strangler Lewis · 12-15-2009, 12:57 PM

1) We have enough of a problem with sabotaging the president with an eye towards an election that's four years off. Making these votes of confidence every two years would probably worsen that. Unless . . .

2) There was a supermajority requirement for a "no" vote. This would overcome our cultural tendency to throw the bums out because it feels good to do it. Also, it might require members of Congress to find a way to work with the president because he's going to be there for a while.

Alex · 12-15-2009, 01:06 PM

Or, if you go by opinion polls as an indicator he'd have been out of office after 7 years (by year 6 he was well under 50% in such polls).

Also note that I removed the electoral college for the Confidence votes, so the small state advantage is removed. Also, the vote is not do you want Bush or the Democrat but do you want Bush or a new election between a Democrat and a Republican. Saying no to Bush does not guarantee the office will change parties, I'm thinking this would weaken loyalty to the person.

Tom · 12-15-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Or, if you go by opinion polls as an indicator he'd have been out of office after 7 years (by year 6 he was well under 50% in such polls).

I think he might well have been out after four years. I'm not sure he would have been able to muster 51% of the (popular or electoral) votes in 2004 without John Kerry to run against.

scaeagles · 12-15-2009, 01:26 PM

I don't think any Presidient would last longer than 4 years. With no opponent to focus on and only your own record to defend with multitudes of people looking to spin it as negatively as possible I don't see how you could possibly stay in office. So much of campaigning is how much your opponent sucks. Without the chance to do that and the negatives only coming at you, you would have no chance.

12-09-2009, 04:21 PM	#1
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	I also think that there's a misconception about the cost of medical care with insurance. After my emergency visit to the hospital last week (that included one night's stay), my bill for the deductible + co-pay + my percentage of daily charge was close to $1000. That doesn't include lab fees, which I'm sure will be costly as well. And I'm covered under what's considered to be a good insurance plan. __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2009, 06:20 PM	#3
Tom Valued member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 541	I believe as well that many of those who are currently happy with their health insurance will become less happy if cost increases are not controlled soon. My premiums are about 2.5 times what they were 15 months ago (and I can't change providers due to a pre-existing condition). Right now, I can still afford to pay them, but I won't be able to if they continue in that direction, and I think a lot of people could see themselves similarly priced out of their current insurance in the not-too-far-off future.
	Submit to Quotes

12-10-2009, 05:33 AM	#4
lashbear SwishBuckling Bear Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In Isolation :) Posts: 6,597	You may remember I had a Tenodesis last year (the re-attachment of my Bicep muscle in my right arm). The Out-of pocket cost to me after my medical insurance and the Government medicare paid all their bits was still $1200 - because the Government sets the rebate levels and the AMA sets their "Standard scheduled Fees" and nary the twain shall meet. At least they threw in that packet of pain-killers. They were fun. __________________ *I Heart* my Husband - I can't think of anyone I'd rather be in isolation with.**
	Submit to Quotes

12-15-2009, 12:44 PM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	While on conference calls today I've been bouncing around ideas in my head for how I'd re-do the election of the president if granted such power (I'm odd). The idea I've been swirling around is this: President is elected (whether using current electoral college model or not) to initial four year term. After four years, rather than an all out election, the president is subjected to a national vote of confidence. Everybody just votes on "Should Bob continue to be president?" If majority (though I've been thinking of supermajority requirements too) says yes then repeat every two years until majority no longer say yes. No term limit on office. If majority says no then full blown presidential election is held 1 year later, current president is not eligible. Cycle starts over. Office of vice president is eliminated. In case of presidential death/incapacitation next in line holds office until full presidential election to be held at next scheduled vote of confidence (successor eligible for office). Assuming all of this for the sake of argument, I'd be interested to know on anything thoughts on repercussions from such a system?
	Submit to Quotes

12-15-2009, 12:57 PM	#7
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	1) We have enough of a problem with sabotaging the president with an eye towards an election that's four years off. Making these votes of confidence every two years would probably worsen that. Unless . . . 2) There was a supermajority requirement for a "no" vote. This would overcome our cultural tendency to throw the bums out because it feels good to do it. Also, it might require members of Congress to find a way to work with the president because he's going to be there for a while. __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

12-15-2009, 01:06 PM	#8
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Or, if you go by opinion polls as an indicator he'd have been out of office after 7 years (by year 6 he was well under 50% in such polls). Also note that I removed the electoral college for the Confidence votes, so the small state advantage is removed. Also, the vote is not do you want Bush or the Democrat but do you want Bush or a new election between a Democrat and a Republican. Saying no to Bush does not guarantee the office will change parties, I'm thinking this would weaken loyalty to the person.
	Submit to Quotes

12-15-2009, 01:26 PM	#10
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I don't think any Presidient would last longer than 4 years. With no opponent to focus on and only your own record to defend with multitudes of people looking to spin it as negatively as possible I don't see how you could possibly stay in office. So much of campaigning is how much your opponent sucks. Without the chance to do that and the negatives only coming at you, you would have no chance.
	Submit to Quotes